Elias N. Berrum v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
02A03-1607-CR-1673
Ind. Ct. App.May 16, 2017Background
- Victim V.R. (born 2001) disclosed in 2008 that Elias Berrum touched her inappropriately; a forensic video interview of V.R. was conducted on August 27, 2008.
- The 2008 investigation was closed, but V.R. later moved back in with Berrum and made additional abuse disclosures describing multiple molestations occurring from 2011–2015.
- In April 2015 V.R. disclosed abuse again, attempted self-harm, and later moved in with her biological father; the State charged Berrum in October 2015 with multiple counts of child molesting.
- At trial V.R. testified but could not recall specific details from the 2008 events; the State sought to play the 2008 forensic videotaped interview under the recorded-recollection hearsay exception.
- Over Berrum’s objection the trial court admitted the videotaped interview; the jury convicted Berrum on three counts and he was sentenced to an aggregate executed term. Berrum appealed, arguing erroneous admission of the videotape under Evid. R. 803(5).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting V.R.’s 2008 videotaped forensic interview under the recorded-recollection exception to hearsay | State: The interview was made when the matter was fresh, V.R. adopted it as truthful, and she lacked sufficient trial recollection to testify fully, satisfying Evid. R. 803(5). | Berrum: The video did not accurately reflect V.R.’s knowledge because V.R. could not recall specifics at trial, so foundational requirements for recorded recollection were not met. | The court held the videotape was properly admitted under the recorded-recollection exception; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Impson v. State, 721 N.E.2d 1275 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (elements required for recorded-recollection exception).
- Ballard v. State, 877 N.E.2d 860 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (witness must acknowledge accuracy of prior statement for recorded recollection).
- Sparkman v. State, 722 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (standard of appellate review for evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion).
- Horton v. State, 936 N.E.2d 1277 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (upholding admission of videotaped interview where child could not recall some details at trial and adopted earlier statements).